International Trade Committee on March 20th, 2023

[Gyslain Loyer]

Actually, there are two reasons.

First, the fact that that promise is included in the bill will reassure our producers and the industry.

It will also signal to other countries that want to negotiate regarding a group of products that there is a small sector that will be untouchable. That's what Bill C‑282 is about.

So I see two benefits to passing this bill.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

In other words, words are no longer enough and passing legislation would strengthen that political will, right?

[Gyslain Loyer]

I would tell you that what the Prime Minister said is very important to us.

If the government wants to go down that road, they can put it in a bill without any problem. That's what everybody wants.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

That's great. Thank you.

We often hear about table eggs, dairy, and poultry, but really, you are at the very beginning of the chain.

Could you tell us why supply management is fundamentally important to your sector, which is perhaps a little less well known?

[Gyslain Loyer]

I mentioned in my report that 21% of Canada's needs came from the U.S., which is about 2% of U.S. production. I may be wrong on the number. It's probably less than that.

Our little sector needs confidence and needs confirmation that it is valued and that the country wants production to stay here. As I mentioned, the negotiation of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, is also likely to take a few percentage points away from us over the next 20 years, when eggs and chickens start coming into the country.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Loyer.

My next question is for the Cattle Feeders' Association.

I also thank you for your presentations.

You urged us to reject the bill as being detrimental to other sectors and a bill that would tie our hands. I must confess I didn't quite understand why. It is an argument that we have heard several times.

However, we have had experts, constitutional scholars and international law scholars tell us that this is not a problem and that it would not tie our hands, and that it is also not true to say that no country protects its agriculture by force of law. There are laws in the United States regarding cotton and sugar. The European Union votes mandates in Parliament before negotiating.

So I must confess that I don't really understand your arguments on this. I would like to hear from you on that point.

[Cathy Jo Noble]

Sure. I can go first and James can add to it.

There are many countries that protect agriculture and non-agriculture commodities, but they don't do it in a legislated manner which.... Before you're even sitting at the table, you've already put items aside that you're saying we're not going to even have a conversation on.

I turn to Mr. Carroll's comments. He went through a very long list of trade negotiations and stated that supply management has survived every one of them. Right there is the reason we don't need the legislation to proceed.

I'll turn it over to James, if he wants to comment.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I would like you to reply briefly, please. I have more questions coming.

[James Bekkering]

Cathy reiterated our position quite a bit.

I think that legislating this into trade negotiations is showing our hand before we are even at the table, and I think that is detrimental to any trade negotiation.

I'll turn it over.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I understood that in your presentation, but I told you in my first comments how inaccurate that was, according to the experts we heard. The United States has laws that protect certain sectors. Obviously, you ignored my introduction.

I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Perron.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you very much.

I thank the witnesses for being with us today.

Mr. Currie, you represent the Canadian Federation of Agriculture; therefore, you represent everyone. In your presentation, you made it clear that supply management could exist, that we didn't have to go and dip into it to favour other sectors, that the two models could coexist, and that your federation still believes in international trade.

I'd like you to expand on that a little bit and talk about how other sectors that are not supply managed are supported, such as through export support programs or government agricultural programs.

Don't you think we should be emphasizing these things rather than trying not to protect supply managed sectors?

[Keith Currie]

Thank you for the question.

At the end of the day, this can't be about a zero-sum game. We can have a robust and vibrant supply-managed system domestically and still have tremendous opportunities for other commodities internationally.

I don't think we need to continue to have one sector of our agriculture that's constantly first on the agenda for cutting in a trade negotiation. It doesn't have to be that way. Supply management has proven over the last 50 years how strong it is, not only domestically in supporting farmers but also for the economy as a whole, and that can continue going forward, so I don't think we have to have one without the other. It's not that you're taking something off the table right off the bat, and therefore somebody else has to give up. It doesn't have to be that kind of a game. We have tremendous commodities production here in Canada and we have lots of opportunities for those products to go worldwide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We go now to Mr. Cannings for six minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you to all the witnesses here and online.

I want to start with Mr. Carroll. You mentioned some of the ways in which other countries have supported their agricultural sectors. You mentioned the United States and the government procurement strategies. I'm wondering if you could expand on those with regard to, say, Europe and what the European Union does to support its agricultural sector.

[Tim Carroll]

I was going to say that in the same way that Canada has different ways of controlling the supply into the market for different commodities, you see the same, as you said, in Europe and the United States.

For example, there's one I know of in Europe simply because I was doing some work on it at one time. The hog producers in Denmark have a system whereby they more or less create a fund. The producers that are producing pay into the fund, and for those who have restricted their production or strengthened the market, the board does a projection of what they need, and they run a program like that.

In the U.K. or in Europe in general, the control of the number of commodities that are grown is usually handled within the countries, but they are also paid fairly well to remove land from production and to use it for environmental purposes. That works as well in terms of the supply management.

As I said, there are many programs. It's not that they all have the same kind that Canada does, but there are other producer-controlled or government-controlled programs.

The Netherlands got rid of supply management in milk, as did New Zealand, but their supply management programs for milk cost money. There was taxpayer money involved in dealing with producers and making payments to producers to reduce supply. The United States pays for corn acreage that is taken out of production.

As I said, what I tried to put forward in my presentation was that supply management is a normal business practice. It's just a matter of who controls it. I don't know of any industry or business that doesn't project their demand and try to fit their supply to it. The poultry and milk sectors seem to have done that very well.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

I want to turn to you, Mr. Currie, because you mentioned non-tariff barriers and this whole idea that somehow we are pitting one sector against the other if we try to protect the supply management sector.

In CETA, it seems that the beef industry got greater access to Europe, but from what I understand, our exports of beef to Europe have dropped since CETA has happened, so something else is going on there.

How connected are these sectors in these trade agreements, in the negotiations?

[Keith Currie]

From my experience, all agriculture commodities do a very good job of working with their federal government to make sure that their best interests are carried forward in any trade agreement.

You're right that in CETA in particular, I think it's only 3% of beef that has actually got into the European Union. My beef colleagues are better able to answer that, but I know that pork has literally zero access.

For example, we've had examples of durum wheat not getting into places like Italy as a result of non-trade barrier issues, so that's a constantly ongoing issue.

I know that you asked Mr. Carroll a question about support. I can use a reference to our friends south of the border. Here in Canada the average income we receive from the federal government through programming is 4%. Our U.S. counterparts are receiving 40% of their annual income. That is a non-trade barrier all in itself. Supply management does not affect that aspect of our trade. They don't need support from the federal government. They can continue to return costs on their production while maintaining stable prices for consumers.

There are all kinds of ways that governments internationally manipulate the borders to make sure that product does or does not get in, and that's something we need to look at further as our negotiations go on in new deals. We need to know how we avoid those situations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

You have 30 seconds remaining, Mr. Cannings.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I'll turn to Mr. Pelissero and ask about how American producers—these small farms that seem to be going under in the States—view their own country's policies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Could we have a brief answer, sir?

[Roger Pelissero]

Yes.

A small farm in the U.S. would be one million birds. When the USDA looks at bird flu, they say that a backyard flock is something less than 500,000 birds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much for that very pointed answer.

Mr. Carrie, you have five minutes, please.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

I want to start with Ms. Noble.

You reiterated that all parties support supply management. Supply management has survived our recent trade agreements, but as Mr. Carroll said, countries like New Zealand and Denmark have gotten rid of their supply management for some reason. I am not sure how that's affecting them.

You came up with a significant concern that when you're taking something off the table, there may be consequences for future agreements. I know that your organization did send a letter to Minister Ng explaining some of these concerns about a precedent, concerns that perhaps other sectors will want similar exclusions from the negotiations and that prioritizing one sector over the other could have serious long-term effects.

It does seem to be divisive. We have Mr. Currie, as part of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, who has said that they're taking a strong stance to support this bill.

First of all, did you get a response from Minister Ng to your letter dated February 16, 2023?

[Cathy Jo Noble]

Not yet, no.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

You haven't.

Could you explain for the committee, specifically for your sector, what you see as the precedents that are being set if we pass this bill?